The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No reliable source is being cited to support the content of this WP:BLP. It must therefore be deleted per WP:V. The arguments about notability are entirely beside the point as long as long as readers can't even verify the biographical facts of this person.  Sandstein  07:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline A. Soule[edit]

Jacqueline A. Soule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find anything indepdent of the subject written about the subject in reliable sources. Can find a few things that she has written, but not much, only one scholarly paper, but again nothing written about her or anything that she has written. Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. —J04n(talk page) 20:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 20:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She is an author of botanical taxa (15 by my count) and reorganized the Tagetes subgeneric classification. Any complete description of the taxonomy of that genus would require links to this person's article. Botanists are inherently notable for the fact that they formally describe plant taxa. The lack of information about her in reliable sources is troubling, but it would be a worthy stub even if it only included basic biographical information and the author abbreviation. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One argument is that she has "only published one article" is invalid. I have added the citations of her peer reviewed articles which I have used in my work. Many botanists are not prolific authors, this does not make the work or the author less valid, if anything more accurate as they take their time to get it right. Koibeatu (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is one of those people who at first glance looks like they should be notable, however if no reliable secondary sources exist in enough depth to write a biography then we should not have one. Kevin (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I tend to lean towards keeping the article just out of caution. The fact that the person is a regular newspaper/magazine columnist seems to make someone at least notable in the public eye. Also per Rkitko it seems worthy of keeping for just taxonomy reasons.Chhe (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lack of on-line sources does not mean "non-notable." --Kleopatra (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I'm gonna hinge on the side of delete on this one. In the absence of actual third party sources to support the above argument, I disagree that being specialist of a barely average-sized genus (by opposition to, say, the massive Senecio) which is not of crucial agronomic importance represents inherent notability. Neither does merely being an author of taxa. Circéus (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagetes is is of crucial agronomic importance for its use and potential as a biopesticide, in particular, it is one of the species whose genome is being, and has been, studied extensively for tropical agricultural bioengineering. It's certainly more important in the non-western World, but it's a major genus.[1]
    • Except taxonomic expertise alone (and so far what I've seen her expertise is limited to this) in it is not sufficient enough to carry a demonstration of notability to me. In this taxonomy does not appear to effect agronomical issues the way they did with Armillaria. Her writing remains at best regional in distribution... Sorry, I stand by my vote. Circéus (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not trying to change your vote. I'm just pointing out that your argument that Tagetes is "a barely average-sized genus ... which is not of crucial agronomic importance" is wrong. The genus is of great agronomic importance to tropical and subtropical agriculture and bioengineering. En.wikipedia is notoriously poor in these areas, and nothing I say will change that. But I do bother to point it out every so often. --Kleopatra (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll blame this one more on a lack of knowledge of Tagetes on my part than on the systemic biases of en:, of which, as a Quebecer, I am quite familiar. Circéus (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's the same result, either way. Articles are deleted for reasons that would never come up when dealing with Western botanists/companies/actors. It never occurred to you, for instance, to research and see if the genus was important? To me, that's the Western bias: if you are not extensively familiar with the agricultural economics of Tagetes it must not be important. The bias can only be perpetuated if the basis for deletion is personal familiarity with a research genus. (Disclaimer: I'm a specialist in a huge genus of great agronomic importance to the Tropics.) --Kleopatra (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry if I come off as bad. Basically I'm working with what information I can find and the inference from them. And these inferences simply do not lead to the conclusion that it is likely that third-party sources not accessible would confirm notability. I have quite often drawn that assumption when the sources directly available did not seem to confirm notability by themselves, but here I don't see much evidence of this. I mean, if her research had been of significant effect on the economic aspects of Tagetes, you'd expect it to be fairly widely cited (especially since it's fairly recent—post-1990—research), but it simply appears not to be. I could have summarized it the way Sasata does below, but I wanted to be more specific. Circéus (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size does not matter. Amborella is a small genus not of crucial agronomic importance, by the way.--Kleopatra (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mentioned agronomy because it is the typical reason specialists of a group are notable. Only a limited number of small groups are in comparable situations. Circéus (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I do not wish to imply that her work is unimportant, I'm not convinced this individual meets this criteria of WP:Notability_(academics) "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." (italics mine) Some database searching shows that her 2006 Flora of Ecuador publication doesn't seem to be highly cited (I couldn't find any, but maybe I'm not looking in the right places?), and the other publications listed in the article are conference proceedings. Does publication of several taxa by itself confer notability? I don't interpret the policy that way. Sasata (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.